the ashdod stele of sargon ii - ucl · folia orientalia tome xvli 197. the ashdod stele of sargon...
TRANSCRIPT
FOLIA ORIENTALIA
TOME XVlI 197.
THE ASHDOD STELE OF SARGON II
cJlleeti()n of Assyrian reco1'd.s concerning Yamani's
has recently heen unexpected.ly enriched. by a source
importance 1. During the second season of excavations
'.Fell Ashd.od. in 1963 three fragments of a basalt Assyrian stele
found. 2. They come from the area marked A, and. from the
trench known as Area B, situated at opposite ends of the
d Acropolis, about 200 metres from each other 3 •. Area A,
• 1 The present article is the next part of so far unfinished disserta-Yamani's rebellion in Ashdod ab. 713 - 709 B. C. and His Sup-
Connections with C.llprUS, previously announced in the article Ya-ma-ni a Cypriot'?, Folia Orientalia 14,1972-73, pp. 207-218.
2 Cf. prf'liminary reports of the season: M. Dothan, Ashdod: Report on the JiJxcavations in Seasons 1962/3, IEJ 14, 1964,
; D· N. Freedman, 'rhe Second Season at Ancient Ashdod, 26: 1963, p.138; M. Dothan, D. N. Freedman, Ashdod (in:]
arcMologique, RB 71, 1964, p. 403. The moment of the of the stele was described in a very lively and picturesque
by D. N. Freedman in a popular article: Excavating in an Old Ila1nmn Town, Presbiterian Life 17, 1964, No 6, p. 10-12. Photo-
of the fragments of the stele, taken by J. L. Swauger, were published by H. Tadmor in the article: Philistia under Assyr'ian BA 29, 1966, p. 95. Besides, references have been made to the in: M. Dothan, Ashdod: A City of the Philistine Pentapolis,
(N. Y.) 20, 1967, ,po 184 and Ashdod of the Philistines D. N. Freedman, J. C. Greenfield (eds.), New Direction in
Archaeology, New York 1971, pp.24f by the same author. definite report of the Ashdod excavation of 1963 has only come
recently. Cf. M. Dothan, Ashdod II-III. The Second and Third of Excavations 196:3, 1965. Soundings in 1967. Jerusalem 1971,
1) Text, (V 01. 2) Fig-lUes and PIa tes (=' Atiqot. English Series, IX-X) .
. 3 Cf. the topographic,tl map of the excavations, M. Dothan, 11-111, vo1. 1, p. 16, plan 1.
88
where the fragments marked I and III were found, is
on a south-eastern slope. One of the fragments was found in, .
course of the washing of sherds coming from the debris in
H/3, close to locus 32, the other had becn reused as a s
a Hellenistic wall in locus 45 4. The fragment marked Il
from trial trench G, dug out in the northern part of the tell, .
thc western slopc. The stele fragment was uncovered in the .
immediately below the surface extending at the depth
to 100 cm. The stratum was full of Byzantine shcrds. The
in question was not the only Iron Age object in that late
Of the shcrds, pieces of pottcry, terracotta reprcsentations
Kernos heads and fragments of an offering table deserve
In J. L. Swauger's opinion, wc have to do here with a ru
heap from the 5th-7th c. A.D., situated just outside city
Summing up, let us note that although the fragmcnts
Assyrian stele wcre found at Tell Ashdod in the course of a
atic excavation, their archaeological context does not
anything substantial to their interpretation. None of the
ments was found in situ, i. e. in the original location of the
Stratigraphic dating is also out of. the question. However,
problem od dating has been solved successfully on the basis
a paleographic study of the existing fragments. It is
mentioning that the dating has been indirectly confirmed
archaeology. Small fragments of the stele have been dug out
two distant points in the city, which agrees the otherwise
known fact of smashing the monuments of Assyrian rule at
moment of throwing off the yoke 6. In the case of Ashdod we
4 Of. the short mention in M. Dothan, Ashdod II-IlI, p. 40, and the map enclosed in the publication of the fir.st season: M. Dothan, D. N. Freedman, Ashdod I. The Ftrst of 1962, Jerusalem. 1967 'Atiqot. English Series p. 19, plan 2.
5 J. L. Swauger, The Trench (Area G) [in:] M. Dothan, As Il-IlI, p. 150. It is difficult to understand why J'. h Swaug-er about two fragments of Sargon II's inscription here. Most only one fragment of the stele comes from the trial trench G.
6 Of. the fragments of stelae from the time of Sargon II f Samaria Oarchemish and Asharne. The literature on the subj , . quoted in L. D. Levine, Two Neo-Assyrtan Stelae from Iran, 1972, pp. 56f.
89
the exact date of the rebellion Assyria during which
stole may have been destroyed. It can be suggested that this
shortly after the erecting of the stele, in 705 B. 0.,
after the death of Sf1I'gon Il, during an anti-As syrian rebel-
led by the Judaean Hezekiah 7. Ilct us remember, however,
a,fter the defeat of the rebels Ashdod is again mentioned in
sources in 701 H. O. a,s a payer of tributes (the Ta,ylor
(Senah) Il, 51J.
The publication of the Ashdod stele was entrusted to Haim
of the .Terusalem University. Already in 1967 hc offered
first extensive dcscription in modern Hebrew 8. Three years
G. Wilhelm published an extract from H. Tadmor's letter
a reconstruction er Fragments Il and III in the A1'ohiv
01'ientforsohung 9. The final version was included in the official
on the excavations in the years 1963 and 1965 10.
The fragments of the stele resemble typical comme-
. e monuments erected in contries conquered by or subordi-
to Assyrian rulers. They usually are three-faced and carry
image of the king being the symbol of a god on the front 11.
of the best preserved objects of this kind from the days of
Il is the famous Kition (now Ilarnaka) stele, built after
of the seven Cypriot rulers in 707 B. C. 12 D. D. Levine
7 The circumstances of the outbreak and course of the rebellion described in more detail in J, Bright, A History of Israe12
, Jjondon pp. 282-284; H. Tn,dmor, Philistin ... , BA 29,1966, pp. 95-97; oth, The History of Israe12
, London 1965, pp. 265-269; H. H,ow-Heze7ciah's Reform nnd Rebellion, BJH,L 44, 1961-2, pp. 395-431.
'8 H. Tadmor, Fragm.cn.ts of a Stele of Sargon 11 from the }i]x(}nvations 8hdod, El 8, 1967, pp. 241-245, pI. 41 (English summary, p. 75*). 9 G. Wilhelm, l'el Ashdod, AfO 23, 1970, p. 191., .
10 H. Tadmor, Fragrnents of an Assyrian Stele of Sargon 11 Im:]
Dothan, Ashdod Il-TII, voI. 1, pp. 192-197, vol. 2, pIs. XOVI XOVII, 1.
L. D. Levine, op. cit., p. 51; H. Tadmor, .. . ,EI 8, p. 241 and Assyrinn Stele ... , p. 193.
, Of. the tables in the basic publication E. Schrader, D'ie Sargon-
des Berliner M us eu'iYIS, AA WB,Philos.-histor. KI. 1881/VI, Bc.r-1882. The most recent photographs of the stele can be found III
Nicolaou, Cypriot Inscribed Stones, Nicosia 1971, pI. Ill.
88
where the fragments marked I and III were found, is
on a south-eastern slope. One of the fragments was found in, .
course of the washing of sherds coming from the debris in
H/3, close to locus 32, the other had becn reused as a s
a Hellenistic wall in locus 45 4. The fragment marked Il
from trial trench G, dug out in the northern part of the tell, .
thc western slopc. The stele fragment was uncovered in the .
immediately below the surface extending at the depth
to 100 cm. The stratum was full of Byzantine shcrds. The
in question was not the only Iron Age object in that late
Of the shcrds, pieces of pottcry, terracotta reprcsentations
Kernos heads and fragments of an offering table deserve
In J. L. Swauger's opinion, wc have to do here with a ru
heap from the 5th-7th c. A.D., situated just outside city
Summing up, let us note that although the fragmcnts
Assyrian stele wcre found at Tell Ashdod in the course of a
atic excavation, their archaeological context does not
anything substantial to their interpretation. None of the
ments was found in situ, i. e. in the original location of the
Stratigraphic dating is also out of. the question. However,
problem od dating has been solved successfully on the basis
a paleographic study of the existing fragments. It is
mentioning that the dating has been indirectly confirmed
archaeology. Small fragments of the stele have been dug out
two distant points in the city, which agrees the otherwise
known fact of smashing the monuments of Assyrian rule at
moment of throwing off the yoke 6. In the case of Ashdod we
4 Of. the short mention in M. Dothan, Ashdod II-IlI, p. 40, and the map enclosed in the publication of the fir.st season: M. Dothan, D. N. Freedman, Ashdod I. The Ftrst of 1962, Jerusalem. 1967 'Atiqot. English Series p. 19, plan 2.
5 J. L. Swauger, The Trench (Area G) [in:] M. Dothan, As Il-IlI, p. 150. It is difficult to understand why J'. h Swaug-er about two fragments of Sargon II's inscription here. Most only one fragment of the stele comes from the trial trench G.
6 Of. the fragments of stelae from the time of Sargon II f Samaria Oarchemish and Asharne. The literature on the subj , . quoted in L. D. Levine, Two Neo-Assyrtan Stelae from Iran, 1972, pp. 56f.
89
the exact date of the rebellion Assyria during which
stole may have been destroyed. It can be suggested that this
shortly after the erecting of the stele, in 705 B. 0.,
after the death of Sf1I'gon Il, during an anti-As syrian rebel-
led by the Judaean Hezekiah 7. Ilct us remember, however,
a,fter the defeat of the rebels Ashdod is again mentioned in
sources in 701 H. O. a,s a payer of tributes (the Ta,ylor
(Senah) Il, 51J.
The publication of the Ashdod stele was entrusted to Haim
of the .Terusalem University. Already in 1967 hc offered
first extensive dcscription in modern Hebrew 8. Three years
G. Wilhelm published an extract from H. Tadmor's letter
a reconstruction er Fragments Il and III in the A1'ohiv
01'ientforsohung 9. The final version was included in the official
on the excavations in the years 1963 and 1965 10.
The fragments of the stele resemble typical comme-
. e monuments erected in contries conquered by or subordi-
to Assyrian rulers. They usually are three-faced and carry
image of the king being the symbol of a god on the front 11.
of the best preserved objects of this kind from the days of
Il is the famous Kition (now Ilarnaka) stele, built after
of the seven Cypriot rulers in 707 B. C. 12 D. D. Levine
7 The circumstances of the outbreak and course of the rebellion described in more detail in J, Bright, A History of Israe12
, Jjondon pp. 282-284; H. Tn,dmor, Philistin ... , BA 29,1966, pp. 95-97; oth, The History of Israe12
, London 1965, pp. 265-269; H. H,ow-Heze7ciah's Reform nnd Rebellion, BJH,L 44, 1961-2, pp. 395-431.
'8 H. Tadmor, Fragm.cn.ts of a Stele of Sargon 11 from the }i]x(}nvations 8hdod, El 8, 1967, pp. 241-245, pI. 41 (English summary, p. 75*). 9 G. Wilhelm, l'el Ashdod, AfO 23, 1970, p. 191., .
10 H. Tadmor, Fragrnents of an Assyrian Stele of Sargon 11 Im:]
Dothan, Ashdod Il-TII, voI. 1, pp. 192-197, vol. 2, pIs. XOVI XOVII, 1.
L. D. Levine, op. cit., p. 51; H. Tadmor, .. . ,EI 8, p. 241 and Assyrinn Stele ... , p. 193.
, Of. the tables in the basic publication E. Schrader, D'ie Sargon-
des Berliner M us eu'iYIS , AA WB,Philos.-histor. KI. 1881/VI, Bc.r-1882. The most recent photographs of the stele can be found III
Nicolaou, Cypriot Inscribed Stones, Nicosia 1971, pI. Ill.
90
classifies the Ashdod stelc together with those at Kition and N
fehabad (west of Hamadan) among the so-called stelae" 13.
While it is easy to imagine the shape of the Ashdod stelcr
dimensions are difficult to establish. For the sake of
let us recall that the height of thc Kition stele is above 2
(2.09 m.) and its width is 68 cm.; its depth ie estima.ted at 45,5
although only 32 cm. has been preserved, while the rest been split off 14.
According to H. Tadmor's paleographic ana,}ysis the As
stela carries script identical to that on the Kition and ..n."ll<AI.LJ.
stelae. The script is "smooth, swift, the work of the steady
of the king's stone-cutter" 15.
While it is carved in t,he monumental script, analogous to
found on other Assyrian royal monuments, the text of the
stele also contains some cuneiform characters of Ba
shape. In I these are the signs SA, SA, and
Fragment Il 1-9 UR, and in Fragment III DINGIR 16. This
a mannerism chara,cteristic of the times of Sargon II 17.
In his first publication H. Tadmor posed the question
objects of this kind, had not been transported to their
from Assyria in rough-hewn form. He believes at any rate
the Kition stele was made in Syria and shipped to Cyprus,
that the Ashdod stele, made of basalt, which is not to be
anywhere near the city, was brought there from some
place 18. Both statements must be called into question. The
stele was made of gabbro, a material available in Cyprus 19.
13 Cf. I ... D. Levin:e, op. cit., p. 53. 14 Cf. H. 'radmor, Assyrian Stele ... , p.194 and L.
l. cU. .
15 H. Tadmor, ]i1ragment8 ... , El 8, 1967, p. 242.
16 H. Tadmor, AS8Y'r'ian Stele ... , p.195, note 20. 17 H. Tadmor (A88yrian Stele ... , p. 195, note 21) refers the
to the so-called Bronze, Silver and Gold Inscriptions from Dur Sha for comparison. Cf. H. ,\iVin'ckIer, Die Keil8chrifttexte Sargon8 den Papierabklat8chen und Originalen, Leipzig 1889, vol. Il, pIs.
18 H. Tadmor, Fragment8 ... , El 8, 1967, p.242. 19 G. Hill, A History of Gypru8, I, Cambridge 1949, p. 104
note 2.
91
in the text of the inscription suggests that the stole was
ibe erected precisely at Kition. How could an Assyrian stone-
have known the details of local 20. As for the
stele, D. N. Freedman suggests that the stone could have
brought from the region north of Megiddo 21. Thus, this stele
could have been ma,de from a local material. It seems more
ble then that it was the craftsmen carving the texts that , , rather than rea,dy blocks of stone .
. In his second includes in the excavation report
.the years 1963 and 1965, H. Tadmor modifies his original views,
states .tha,t the Ashdod stele, like the Asharne stele, was made
skilled a,rtisan in one of the main administrative centres
southern Syria, adjacent to areas where basalt is abundant:
Galilee, the Gohn Heights or the Bashan 22.
There is little doubt about the date when the Ashdod stele was
H. Tadmor stresses the fact that the features of this text
. Saro-on II ttre typica,l of Sargon's later inscriptions. Tl'he author
r:minds us that it was the Assyrian custom to built stehte
the course of war campa,igns and on their conclusion. He believes,
. that the Ashdod inscription was made immediately
. the conquest of the city in 711 B. C., and certainly not later
that 23. However, when we consider the chronology of
's rebellion, including a longer stationing of the Assyrian
y in the area, untill about 709 B. C., which I postul.ate in
dissertation, and the striking resemblance of the scrlpt on
Ashdod and Kition stelae (we follow H. Tadmor in stressing
s), the questions arises whether the Ashdod stele was not
later, perhaps at the same time as the Kition Stele, or
a,fter that. It is significant that the Kition stele lacks any
of the Ashdod rebellion, though of course we do not
. 20 CL Colum III (IV), line 52 the Kition stele in G .. Smi th;S tion, The Gypru8 ZAS 9, 1871, p. 72 an.d C. J. Gadd s
tary in: In8cribed Pri8m8 of Sargon 11 from N1,mrud, Iraq 16,
. p. 194. , 963 138 21 D. N. Freedman, The Second Sea80n ... , BA 26, 1. ,p. .
H. Tadmor, A88yrian Stele ... , p.195. 23H. Tadmor, Fragment8 ... , El 8, 1967, p.242 and
.., p. 192.
90
classifies the Ashdod stelc together with those at Kition and N
fehabad (west of Hamadan) among the so-called stelae" 13.
While it is easy to imagine the shape of the Ashdod stelcr
dimensions are difficult to establish. For the sake of
let us recall that the height of thc Kition stele is above 2
(2.09 m.) and its width is 68 cm.; its depth ie estima.ted at 45,5
although only 32 cm. has been preserved, while the rest been split off 14.
According to H. Tadmor's paleographic ana,}ysis the As
stela carries script identical to that on the Kition and ..n."ll<AI.LJ.
stelae. The script is "smooth, swift, the work of the steady
of the king's stone-cutter" 15.
While it is carved in t,he monumental script, analogous to
found on other Assyrian royal monuments, the text of the
stele also contains some cuneiform characters of Ba
shape. In I these are the signs SA, SA, and
Fragment Il 1-9 UR, and in Fragment III DINGIR 16. This
a mannerism chara,cteristic of the times of Sargon II 17.
In his first publication H. Tadmor posed the question
objects of this kind, had not been transported to their
from Assyria in rough-hewn form. He believes at any rate
the Kition stele was made in Syria and shipped to Cyprus,
that the Ashdod stele, made of basalt, which is not to be
anywhere near the city, was brought there from some
place 18. Both statements must be called into question. The
stele was made of gabbro, a material available in Cyprus 19.
13 Cf. I ... D. Levin:e, op. cit., p. 53. 14 Cf. H. 'radmor, Assyrian Stele ... , p.194 and L.
l. cU. .
15 H. Tadmor, ]i1ragment8 ... , El 8, 1967, p. 242.
16 H. Tadmor, AS8Y'r'ian Stele ... , p.195, note 20. 17 H. Tadmor (A88yrian Stele ... , p. 195, note 21) refers the
to the so-called Bronze, Silver and Gold Inscriptions from Dur Sha for comparison. Cf. H. ,\iVin'ckIer, Die Keil8chrifttexte Sargon8 den Papierabklat8chen und Originalen, Leipzig 1889, vol. Il, pIs.
18 H. Tadmor, Fragment8 ... , El 8, 1967, p.242. 19 G. Hill, A History of Gypru8, I, Cambridge 1949, p. 104
note 2.
91
in the text of the inscription suggests that the stole was
ibe erected precisely at Kition. How could an Assyrian stone-
have known the details of local 20. As for the
stele, D. N. Freedman suggests that the stone could have
brought from the region north of Megiddo 21. Thus, this stele
could have been ma,de from a local material. It seems more
ble then that it was the craftsmen carving the texts that , , rather than rea,dy blocks of stone .
. In his second includes in the excavation report
.the years 1963 and 1965, H. Tadmor modifies his original views,
states .tha,t the Ashdod stele, like the Asharne stele, was made
skilled a,rtisan in one of the main administrative centres
southern Syria, adjacent to areas where basalt is abundant:
Galilee, the Gohn Heights or the Bashan 22.
There is little doubt about the date when the Ashdod stele was
H. Tadmor stresses the fact that the features of this text
. Saro-on II ttre typica,l of Sargon's later inscriptions. Tl'he author
r:minds us that it was the Assyrian custom to built stehte
the course of war campa,igns and on their conclusion. He believes,
. that the Ashdod inscription was made immediately
. the conquest of the city in 711 B. C., and certainly not later
that 23. However, when we consider the chronology of
's rebellion, including a longer stationing of the Assyrian
y in the area, untill about 709 B. C., which I postul.ate in
dissertation, and the striking resemblance of the scrlpt on
Ashdod and Kition stelae (we follow H. Tadmor in stressing
s), the questions arises whether the Ashdod stele was not
later, perhaps at the same time as the Kition Stele, or
a,fter that. It is significant that the Kition stele lacks any
of the Ashdod rebellion, though of course we do not
. 20 CL Colum III (IV), line 52 the Kition stele in G .. Smi th;S tion, The Gypru8 ZAS 9, 1871, p. 72 an.d C. J. Gadd s
tary in: In8cribed Pri8m8 of Sargon 11 from N1,mrud, Iraq 16,
. p. 194. , 963 138 21 D. N. Freedman, The Second Sea80n ... , BA 26, 1. ,p. .
H. Tadmor, A88yrian Stele ... , p.195. 23H. Tadmor, Fragment8 ... , El 8, 1967, p.242 and
.., p. 192.
92
know the full text 24. If we assume that the king's stone-
left A. syria for Cyprus together with the returning rulers of
island, it is very tempting to suppose that he made the
stele on his wa.y back, even if there is no proof of that 25.
In H. Tadmor's opinion it is not difficult to fix the date
the smashing of the stele 26. Its destruction 705, as has
suggested above, is very likely, and this dl);ting even seems
be indirectly confirmed by the archaeological context - a
overlooked by H. Tadmor. We can say in any case tha,t the
stood for a very short time and was smashed to pieces
the period between the death of Sargon II (705 B. C.) and
Palestinian campaign of his son Sennacherib in 701 B. C. 27
]j'ragment I
It eomes from an edge of the stele. The left side contains
sings in ea,ch line. H. Tadmor 28 transcribes and rest,ores the
as f011ows:
1. [ .......... ] tim ,), "-I. [ ...... , ... ] 8IG5
3. [ .......... ] ki-1"I.t
4. [ .......... DAGA] IJ-tirn
Aeting on the assumption that the fmgment may concern
Ashdod events H. Tadmor interprets lines 3 and 4 as
3. [ittiya 7ci-nt 0.= "They (= the rebels of
incited them (a.ga,inst me) I made them my enemies".
24 It was cut into :halves probably still in Antiquity, and it been preserved because iti was used as a building stone. Cf. L. R 0
Reisen nach ](os, Halikarnassos, Rhodos und der Insel Cypern, 1852, p. 86.
25 It would be worth while iiO carry out an epigraphic analysis both inscriptions in order to see whethel' they are made by the stone-cutting technique. Let us note t,hat also D. N. Freed ('The Second Season ... , BA 26, 1963, p. 138) expresses the view the Ashdod stele was built in 707 B. c.
26 H. Tadmor, Assyrian Stele ... , p. 194.
27 D. N. Freedman (ibid.) accepts the qear 704 B. C. as the of the destruction of the stele.
28 H. Tadmor, Assyrian Stele ... , p. 195.
93
4. perhaps: ['ummiiniit mlit Ass'wr 1'aps]ii-ti'ln == (I have mobi-
) the im[mense fol'{'()s of Assyria,].
The right side contains one sign in Cfwh line, which practically
all reconstruction:
1. r in 1 - [ .•..•.. ]
2.8ATJ[ ......... ]
3 v, r 1 [ ] . sa - it ...... .
L1. [ .......... , ]
Fn1gment II
It is the h1rgest of the three fragments 29. In view of the blank
in its top section 11. 'l'admor supposes it to constituted
initial section of the second column, since on the first column
text was inseribed over the ruler's figure. It seems, however,
it would be more correct to describe the tjext l1S a fragnlOnt
one of the side columns. The fact that four lines of the text
a trace of the fifth line) lUlVO been preserved has enabled
Tadmor to a" convicing reconstruction; the recon-
text lists Humbanigf1sh the Blamite and 1,he lands of
8hurdf1 and in the same order as ca,n be found
other texts of Sargon II: the Bull Inscription, lines 12-14;
Pavement Inscription IV, 14-19; the Display Inscription
Hall XIV, lines 7-8; and the Larnalm stele, Face B, lines
1. [ .......... ] md!!urn-ba-l1'Hga-as ..... ]
2. [ .......... ] r arQ1J, RUE AQurJ da,l [.,.]
3. [.... RUR] r .Mal -da,-a-a rRUE-' [ .... ]
4. [ ......... , J r '11,-[ . •••...•..••. ]
Fragment TII
It is of the same and shape as Fra,gment I 30. Only the left
makes attem})t a,t reconstruction possible:
29 As above. 30 Cf. H. Tadmor, AS8yrian Stele ... , pp. 195, 197.
92
know the full text 24. If we assume that the king's stone-
left A. syria for Cyprus together with the returning rulers of
island, it is very tempting to suppose that he made the
stele on his wa.y back, even if there is no proof of that 25.
In H. Tadmor's opinion it is not difficult to fix the date
the smashing of the stele 26. Its destruction 705, as has
suggested above, is very likely, and this dl);ting even seems
be indirectly confirmed by the archaeological context - a
overlooked by H. Tadmor. We can say in any case tha,t the
stood for a very short time and was smashed to pieces
the period between the death of Sargon II (705 B. C.) and
Palestinian campaign of his son Sennacherib in 701 B. C. 27
]j'ragment I
It eomes from an edge of the stele. The left side contains
sings in ea,ch line. H. Tadmor 28 transcribes and rest,ores the
as f011ows:
1. [ .......... ] tim ,), "-I. [ ...... , ... ] 8IG5
3. [ .......... ] ki-1"I.t
4. [ .......... DAGA] IJ-tirn
Aeting on the assumption that the fmgment may concern
Ashdod events H. Tadmor interprets lines 3 and 4 as
3. [ittiya 7ci-nt 0.= "They (= the rebels of
incited them (a.ga,inst me) I made them my enemies".
24 It was cut into :halves probably still in Antiquity, and it been preserved because iti was used as a building stone. Cf. L. R 0
Reisen nach ](os, Halikarnassos, Rhodos und der Insel Cypern, 1852, p. 86.
25 It would be worth while iiO carry out an epigraphic analysis both inscriptions in order to see whethel' they are made by the stone-cutting technique. Let us note t,hat also D. N. Freed ('The Second Season ... , BA 26, 1963, p. 138) expresses the view the Ashdod stele was built in 707 B. c.
26 H. Tadmor, Assyrian Stele ... , p. 194.
27 D. N. Freedman (ibid.) accepts the qear 704 B. C. as the of the destruction of the stele.
28 H. Tadmor, Assyrian Stele ... , p. 195.
93
4. perhaps: ['ummiiniit mlit Ass'wr 1'aps]ii-ti'ln == (I have mobi-
) the im[mense fol'{'()s of Assyria,].
The right side contains one sign in Cfwh line, which practically
all reconstruction:
1. r in 1 - [ .•..•.. ]
2.8ATJ[ ......... ]
3 v, r 1 [ ] . sa - it ...... .
L1. [ .......... , ]
Fn1gment II
It is the h1rgest of the three fragments 29. In view of the blank
in its top section 11. 'l'admor supposes it to constituted
initial section of the second column, since on the first column
text was inseribed over the ruler's figure. It seems, however,
it would be more correct to describe the tjext l1S a fragnlOnt
one of the side columns. The fact that four lines of the text
a trace of the fifth line) lUlVO been preserved has enabled
Tadmor to a" convicing reconstruction; the recon-
text lists Humbanigf1sh the Blamite and 1,he lands of
8hurdf1 and in the same order as ca,n be found
other texts of Sargon II: the Bull Inscription, lines 12-14;
Pavement Inscription IV, 14-19; the Display Inscription
Hall XIV, lines 7-8; and the Larnalm stele, Face B, lines
1. [ .......... ] md!!urn-ba-l1'Hga-as ..... ]
2. [ .......... ] r arQ1J, RUE AQurJ da,l [.,.]
3. [.... RUR] r .Mal -da,-a-a rRUE-' [ .... ]
4. [ ......... , J r '11,-[ . •••...•..••. ]
Fragment TII
It is of the same and shape as Fra,gment I 30. Only the left
makes attem})t a,t reconstruction possible:
29 As above. 30 Cf. H. Tadmor, AS8yrian Stele ... , pp. 195, 197.
94
1. [ .......... ] rx'-u 2. [ .......... ] rup'_l'i
3. [ .......... ] ris'-tap-par
4. [ .......... ] rta'-mar-tus
In H. Tadmor's translation the reads:
1. [ .... ]
2. [ ... da-bi-ib $a-l]ip-ti = " ... (who) speak treachery"
3. [ .......... i]s-tap-par = "he was sending messages"
4. [ ......... . ik-la-a taJ-mar-tus = " ... [he (the rebel
ceased (to deliver) his tri]bute".
The reconstruction of the right side of Fragment Il is impo
1. rx'[ .......... ]
2. DINGIR [ .... ]
3. asJx'[ ..... .. ]
4. aJna' [ ...... ]
5. sa [ .......... ]
* * *
The reconstruction of Fragment II proposed by H. Tadmor
exeIlently documented and correct. As for Fragments I and
however, the very assumption that "the Ashdod stele
in detail the events that preceded the fall of Ashdod in 712"
is questionable. It may have been so, but not necessarily.
insta,nce, the Larnaka stele does not say much about the
between Cyprus and .Sargon II and the relevant passage on
[cf. Column II (IV), 28-53J takes up a relatively smaller part . its total surface.
Discussing line 3 of the left side of Fragment I H.
identifies those who incited people against Sargon II with
Ashdod rebels. Yet, the reconstruction of line 4 contradicts
interpretation. That reconstruction is perhaps quite correct
the text may deal with the mobilization of the immense
31 H. Tadmor, .Assyrian Stele ... , p. 196.
95
; if we accept this, however, the text cannot be a,ssocia,ted
the Ashdod events. I.let us recall that the texts of Sargon
conta.ined information of a lightning-speed reaction of the king
the developments in AsIHlod i:\,nd his sending his body-guard
without addition a,] equipment. The text of line 98 of the
y Inscription explicitly contradicts the use of great forces.
H. Tadmor's argument about line 4 cannot be accepted;
line 3 does not refer to the Ashdod rebellion, either. It could
added, incidentally that the expression gimi1" Bute ?abi $eri
usamkir parallel to line 3 and quoted by H. Tadmor, i:\,ppears
the next to the deseription of the Ashdod I'ebellion.
appears in lines 233-234, after 215 -228 in WinCkl?r:s . . 32, a,nd in line 266, after hnes 249-262 III A. G. LIe S
33. What is more, it is easier to imagine the gathering
the "immense forces of Assyria" against the eoalition led by
uk-aplu-iddina, which included the Sutu nomads.
The reconstruction of lines 2-,1 of Fragment III is essentially
H. Ta,dmor is quite right in believing that [ ... da-bi-ib
was "the derogatory.term used inSargon's inscriptions
denote the rebellious Ashdodites, called Hittities, i. e., Wester-
in the archaizing manner" 34. He also quotes examples
P.ll.llGl>J.<>, line 253, ed. Lie (= line 219, ed. VVinckler), and Display
line 95, ed. ,Vinckler]: It is a rare expression and it
s in only one other place among Sargon's extant inscriptions:
line 113 of the Displa,y Inscription, in connection with another
Mutallu of Kummuh.
Still, it seems that in the case of line 2 [ ... iJ.§-tap-par "he
sending messages", H. Tadmor's reading is somewhat one-
35. According to ;J. Zablocka, "the second line is ambigous:
ar = PI's. 12 of the verh saparu. Sometimes the verh "may
a reflexive meaning in this form": a feeling (e.g. fear)
32 H. Winckler, op. cit., pp. 36-39. 33 A. G. I.Jie, The Inscriptions of Sargon 11, King of Assyri(t. Part 1,
Annals, Paris 1929, p. 42f. 34 H. Tadmor, .AssYTian Stele ... , pp. 196f. 35 H. Tadmor, AS8?!Tian Stele .. ;, p. 197.
94
1. [ .......... ] rx'-u 2. [ .......... ] rup'_l'i
3. [ .......... ] ris'-tap-par
4. [ .......... ] rta'-mar-tus
In H. Tadmor's translation the reads:
1. [ .... ]
2. [ ... da-bi-ib $a-l]ip-ti = " ... (who) speak treachery"
3. [ .......... i]s-tap-par = "he was sending messages"
4. [ ......... . ik-la-a taJ-mar-tus = " ... [he (the rebel
ceased (to deliver) his tri]bute".
The reconstruction of the right side of Fragment Il is impo
1. rx'[ .......... ]
2. DINGIR [ .... ]
3. asJx'[ ..... .. ]
4. aJna' [ ...... ]
5. sa [ .......... ]
* * *
The reconstruction of Fragment II proposed by H. Tadmor
exeIlently documented and correct. As for Fragments I and
however, the very assumption that "the Ashdod stele
in detail the events that preceded the fall of Ashdod in 712"
is questionable. It may have been so, but not necessarily.
insta,nce, the Larnaka stele does not say much about the
between Cyprus and .Sargon II and the relevant passage on
[cf. Column II (IV), 28-53J takes up a relatively smaller part . its total surface.
Discussing line 3 of the left side of Fragment I H.
identifies those who incited people against Sargon II with
Ashdod rebels. Yet, the reconstruction of line 4 contradicts
interpretation. That reconstruction is perhaps quite correct
the text may deal with the mobilization of the immense
31 H. Tadmor, .Assyrian Stele ... , p. 196.
95
; if we accept this, however, the text cannot be a,ssocia,ted
the Ashdod events. I.let us recall that the texts of Sargon
conta.ined information of a lightning-speed reaction of the king
the developments in AsIHlod i:\,nd his sending his body-guard
without addition a,] equipment. The text of line 98 of the
y Inscription explicitly contradicts the use of great forces.
H. Tadmor's argument about line 4 cannot be accepted;
line 3 does not refer to the Ashdod rebellion, either. It could
added, incidentally that the expression gimi1" Bute ?abi $eri
usamkir parallel to line 3 and quoted by H. Tadmor, i:\,ppears
the next to the deseription of the Ashdod I'ebellion.
appears in lines 233-234, after 215 -228 in WinCkl?r:s . . 32, a,nd in line 266, after hnes 249-262 III A. G. LIe S
33. What is more, it is easier to imagine the gathering
the "immense forces of Assyria" against the eoalition led by
uk-aplu-iddina, which included the Sutu nomads.
The reconstruction of lines 2-,1 of Fragment III is essentially
H. Ta,dmor is quite right in believing that [ ... da-bi-ib
was "the derogatory.term used inSargon's inscriptions
denote the rebellious Ashdodites, called Hittities, i. e., Wester-
in the archaizing manner" 34. He also quotes examples
P.ll.llGl>J.<>, line 253, ed. Lie (= line 219, ed. VVinckler), and Display
line 95, ed. ,Vinckler]: It is a rare expression and it
s in only one other place among Sargon's extant inscriptions:
line 113 of the Displa,y Inscription, in connection with another
Mutallu of Kummuh.
Still, it seems that in the case of line 2 [ ... iJ.§-tap-par "he
sending messages", H. Tadmor's reading is somewhat one-
35. According to ;J. Zablocka, "the second line is ambigous:
ar = PI's. 12 of the verh saparu. Sometimes the verh "may
a reflexive meaning in this form": a feeling (e.g. fear)
32 H. Winckler, op. cit., pp. 36-39. 33 A. G. I.Jie, The Inscriptions of Sargon 11, King of Assyri(t. Part 1,
Annals, Paris 1929, p. 42f. 34 H. Tadmor, .AssYTian Stele ... , pp. 196f. 35 H. Tadmor, AS8?!Tian Stele .. ;, p. 197.
96
spread-or does not spread (to others). The verb is found in
meaning in Sargon's the so-called E'ight Campaig'n line 21"
. H. Tadmor's interpretation of line 4 some
flCultIes: The phrase [ ... ilc-la-a denoting (the)
(of the tribute) is relatively infrequent in Sargon's a,nd It refers to:
1. Marduk-aplu-iddina from Bit Ja,kin [Displa,y Inscrip
line 122 (and not line 79 as Tadmor says) and Annals, line (= Ijie, line 265)J;
2. Ki-ak-ki, the ruler of Sinugtu (Display Inscription line and Eight Gampaign, line 312); ,
Mutallu of Kummu!!- (Display Inscription, line 113);
4. ,Tar-ltn-na-zi, ruler of Meliddu (Display Inscription,
none of tlw extant texts does the phrase appea,r in VVl.HJ.<'''I'''V.
wlth the Ashdod events. Wha,t is more interesting even if ·d ' conSI ered only the word tamart'tt by itself, we shall not find it
t?e direct r:-cords on Ashdod. These spea,k of biltu (
hne 216; DIsplay Inscription, line 90; Prism A, lines 8 and 12)
Of course, the expression i7cliJ, may ha;ve appeared in
text of the Ashdod stele, but it is doubtful that it was used reference to Ashdod.
Another difficulty is connected with the sequence of the
of the left side of Fragment Ill. Let us assume for the HHHH'"
that, in agreement with H. Tadmor's a,ssumption, the
stele described in detaSI the events that preceded the fall of
city in 712 B. C.; let us next compare the sequence of the
structed fragments in the three records preserved and
them in reference not only to Azuri but also to the next
of Ashdod, Ahimiti and Yamani. The results a,re shown in
.. 'Phe first column giv(;s the three expressions in the
III wInch they appear on the Ashdod stele, the others
information on the contents of the Annals, the Display
and the Broken Prism A. The bottom section of the table (>{)Tnn,n'.
the order of the elements of the story in the three sources
36 I . h WIS to take this opportunity to thank Professor
blocka from PoznaIi University for her comments on the of the stele in the letter of February 5, 1972 and in our later UH)'-'Ui'NlJ!l
37 H. Tadmor, 1. cit.
97
ons identical or 8imilar to those found on the Ashdod
ts are used).
table clearly sho,v}; that H. Tadmor's assumption that the
side of Fra,gment III refers "to Azuri's rebellion for which
deposed in 713 B. C. E." is extremely unlikely. The result
analysis of the Annals and the Display Inscription, where
expressions preserved in Fragment III of the Ashdod stele
in the reverse order, contradicts that assumption. It is
unlikely that thoso expressions should be used in reference
and Yamani. Only single expressions are used in refe-
to them, but never all three at the same time. Of course
must bear in mind the fact that only fragmentary records of
. Ashdod events have eome down to us, but even on the basis
the surviving texts, the Annals, the Display Inscription and
Prism A, one can see iilleir interdependence and the similarity
their accounts. Hence, it is hardly probable that the "fourth
" from the Ashdod stele differ from them very much.
It appears that H. 'l'admor had dealt with the fragment in
, on in too one-sided a manner. One should not have been
influenced by the fact that it was found in Ashdod and
one of its fragments might therefore refer to events happening
t city. Another solution ought to have been sought, or at
, such a possibility }; hould not have been excluded. One of
possible solutions (and I am not saying that it is the only one)
in the last column of the table. The sequence of phrases
cted by H. Tadmor roughly agrees with the account
of Kummug in the version found in the Display Inscrip-
(lines 112-113). This ruler was actually plotting treason,
unicated with Argistis, the king of Urartu and stopped
his tribute.
The interpretation of the lines 3-4 on the left side of
t III proposed ahove might also allow us to reconstruct
end of the line 1, which is read by H. Tadmor as [ ... ] rx'-u part of the Display Inscription referring to Mutallu's of
_ rebellion there is only one word ending in -u several
before diJ,bib $alipti; the word is pa-tu-u. Table XCVI, 2 of
publication 38 shows clearly a sign in the left upper
Orientali'a, t. XVII
96
spread-or does not spread (to others). The verb is found in
meaning in Sargon's the so-called E'ight Campaig'n line 21"
. H. Tadmor's interpretation of line 4 some
flCultIes: The phrase [ ... ilc-la-a denoting (the)
(of the tribute) is relatively infrequent in Sargon's a,nd It refers to:
1. Marduk-aplu-iddina from Bit Ja,kin [Displa,y Inscrip
line 122 (and not line 79 as Tadmor says) and Annals, line (= Ijie, line 265)J;
2. Ki-ak-ki, the ruler of Sinugtu (Display Inscription line and Eight Gampaign, line 312); ,
Mutallu of Kummu!!- (Display Inscription, line 113);
4. ,Tar-ltn-na-zi, ruler of Meliddu (Display Inscription,
none of tlw extant texts does the phrase appea,r in VVl.HJ.<'''I'''V.
wlth the Ashdod events. Wha,t is more interesting even if ·d ' conSI ered only the word tamart'tt by itself, we shall not find it
t?e direct r:-cords on Ashdod. These spea,k of biltu (
hne 216; DIsplay Inscription, line 90; Prism A, lines 8 and 12)
Of course, the expression i7cliJ, may ha;ve appeared in
text of the Ashdod stele, but it is doubtful that it was used reference to Ashdod.
Another difficulty is connected with the sequence of the
of the left side of Fragment Ill. Let us assume for the HHHH'"
that, in agreement with H. Tadmor's a,ssumption, the
stele described in detaSI the events that preceded the fall of
city in 712 B. C.; let us next compare the sequence of the
structed fragments in the three records preserved and
them in reference not only to Azuri but also to the next
of Ashdod, Ahimiti and Yamani. The results a,re shown in
.. 'Phe first column giv(;s the three expressions in the
III wInch they appear on the Ashdod stele, the others
information on the contents of the Annals, the Display
and the Broken Prism A. The bottom section of the table (>{)Tnn,n'.
the order of the elements of the story in the three sources
36 I . h WIS to take this opportunity to thank Professor
blocka from PoznaIi University for her comments on the of the stele in the letter of February 5, 1972 and in our later UH)'-'Ui'NlJ!l
37 H. Tadmor, 1. cit.
97
ons identical or 8imilar to those found on the Ashdod
ts are used).
table clearly sho,v}; that H. Tadmor's assumption that the
side of Fra,gment III refers "to Azuri's rebellion for which
deposed in 713 B. C. E." is extremely unlikely. The result
analysis of the Annals and the Display Inscription, where
expressions preserved in Fragment III of the Ashdod stele
in the reverse order, contradicts that assumption. It is
unlikely that thoso expressions should be used in reference
and Yamani. Only single expressions are used in refe-
to them, but never all three at the same time. Of course
must bear in mind the fact that only fragmentary records of
. Ashdod events have eome down to us, but even on the basis
the surviving texts, the Annals, the Display Inscription and
Prism A, one can see iilleir interdependence and the similarity
their accounts. Hence, it is hardly probable that the "fourth
" from the Ashdod stele differ from them very much.
It appears that H. 'l'admor had dealt with the fragment in
, on in too one-sided a manner. One should not have been
influenced by the fact that it was found in Ashdod and
one of its fragments might therefore refer to events happening
t city. Another solution ought to have been sought, or at
, such a possibility }; hould not have been excluded. One of
possible solutions (and I am not saying that it is the only one)
in the last column of the table. The sequence of phrases
cted by H. Tadmor roughly agrees with the account
of Kummug in the version found in the Display Inscrip-
(lines 112-113). This ruler was actually plotting treason,
unicated with Argistis, the king of Urartu and stopped
his tribute.
The interpretation of the lines 3-4 on the left side of
t III proposed ahove might also allow us to reconstruct
end of the line 1, which is read by H. Tadmor as [ ... ] rx'-u part of the Display Inscription referring to Mutallu's of
_ rebellion there is only one word ending in -u several
before diJ,bib $alipti; the word is pa-tu-u. Table XCVI, 2 of
publication 38 shows clearly a sign in the left upper
Orientali'a, t. XVII
98
TABLE
ANNALS DISPLA Y INSCR
Azuri Ahimiti Yamani
Hatti
Azuri Ahimiti
Hatti ----
1. dab·ib §alipti 1. 219 1. 219 1. 219 1. 95 1. 95
,,(who) speak treachery"
2. istappar 1. 217 o 0 1. 92 o "he was sending is-pur
messages"
3. i7clii tamartus U. 215-16 0 o 1. 90 o "he ceased (to deliver)
his tribute"
FRAGMENT OF BIWKEN DISPLAY INSC
PRISM A
1. dabib {laUpti
2. istappar
3. i7cla tamartus
Azuri Ahimiti Yamani
1 1 0
1 1 x (ef. ll.
28-36)
1 x (ll. 8 0
and 12)
(about Mutallu of K
1. 113 (beginning) .
x (1. 113 middle) .
1. 113 (end
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'r-..
SEQUENCE OB' EVENTS
Ashdod Stele
1-2-3
Annals
Azuri
xj3/-2-1 Ahimiti
0-0-1 Yam ani
1-0-0
Display Inscription
Azuri
x - similar expression
o - lack of information
f - damaged text
xj3/-2-1 Ahimiti
0-0-1 Yamani
1-0-0
1, 2, 3 - expressions under ,discussion
Prism A
Azuri
1-1-1
Ahimiti
'I-x/3/-? Yamani
0-xj2/-0
part of the plate which can be identified as u according to R.
bat's table 39. It is preceded by a remnant of a cuneiform .
the form of one vertical cuneus and the ends of two
cunei touching the lower part of the vertical cuneus on the
side. Only a very careful inspection of the stone would ena
39 R. Labat, Manuel cl'epigraphie akkadienne (signe, ideogrammes) , Paris 1952, p. 273.
99
determine whether its upper part retains any traces of the ends
two horizontal eunei. The photograph of this part of the
cannot be clearly interpreted, but it might be supposed
the preserved cunei are the remnants of the sign tu 40. If this
, were eonfirmed hy a new inspection of the Fr::tgment HI,
line 1 could be reconstructed as [ ... pa-t]u-u.
To sum up, these remarks on the preserved fragments of the
dod stele seem to contradict H. Tadmor's opinion that the
ts be connected with the events that occured in Ashdod
the rebellion a.ga,inst Assyria about the year 712 B. C. 42.
should not overestima,te historical significance of the
ts. On the other hand, we must strongly emphasize the
of this find as a, first-rate source indirectly eon-
the accounts of. the conquest of Ashdod found in other
texts coming from DuI' Sharukin and Niniveh, as well
mention in chapter XX, 1, of Isaiah 43. As D. N. Freedman
observes, this is in fact the first instance of discovering
tal inscription in Palestine since the finding of Mesha's
in 1868 44; for it is hard to count the small fragment of an
inscription from Samaria 45, whose dating (also to the
of Sargon H) is uncertain 46. Of the few objects imported
Assyria or executed in Assyrian style that have so far been
and describecl 17, the Ashdod stele is among the most
op. cit., p. 272. \Vinckler, op. cit., H, pI. 34, n° 72. Dothan expresRcs the view in his publications that the
of the Ashdod rebellion may have appear on the lost part stele. Cf. his Ashdod of the Philistines,p. 24 and Ashdocl ll-Ill,
43 M. Dothan, Ashdod of the Philistines, p. 25. 44 D. N. Freedman, Excavating in an Old Testament l'own, p. 10
The Second Season ... , p. 138. 45 C. J. Gadd [in:] J. W. and G. M. Crowfoot, K. M. Kenyon,
Ill: The Objects from Samaria, London 1957, p.35 pI. IV.
L. D. Levine, op. cit., p. 56. The scarcity of Assyrian finds in Israel is stressed by R. H e-a,nd E. Stern, Two "Assyrian" Bowls from Israel, IE,T 23, 1973,
98
TABLE
ANNALS DISPLA Y INSCR
Azuri Ahimiti Yamani
Hatti
Azuri Ahimiti
Hatti ----
1. dab·ib §alipti 1. 219 1. 219 1. 219 1. 95 1. 95
,,(who) speak treachery"
2. istappar 1. 217 o 0 1. 92 o "he was sending is-pur
messages"
3. i7clii tamartus U. 215-16 0 o 1. 90 o "he ceased (to deliver)
his tribute"
FRAGMENT OF BIWKEN DISPLAY INSC
PRISM A
1. dabib {laUpti
2. istappar
3. i7cla tamartus
Azuri Ahimiti Yamani
1 1 0
1 1 x (ef. ll.
28-36)
1 x (ll. 8 0
and 12)
(about Mutallu of K
1. 113 (beginning) .
x (1. 113 middle) .
1. 113 (end
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------'r-..
SEQUENCE OB' EVENTS
Ashdod Stele
1-2-3
Annals
Azuri
xj3/-2-1 Ahimiti
0-0-1 Yam ani
1-0-0
Display Inscription
Azuri
x - similar expression
o - lack of information
f - damaged text
xj3/-2-1 Ahimiti
0-0-1 Yamani
1-0-0
1, 2, 3 - expressions under ,discussion
Prism A
Azuri
1-1-1
Ahimiti
'I-x/3/-? Yamani
0-xj2/-0
part of the plate which can be identified as u according to R.
bat's table 39. It is preceded by a remnant of a cuneiform .
the form of one vertical cuneus and the ends of two
cunei touching the lower part of the vertical cuneus on the
side. Only a very careful inspection of the stone would ena
39 R. Labat, Manuel cl'epigraphie akkadienne (signe, ideogrammes) , Paris 1952, p. 273.
99
determine whether its upper part retains any traces of the ends
two horizontal eunei. The photograph of this part of the
cannot be clearly interpreted, but it might be supposed
the preserved cunei are the remnants of the sign tu 40. If this
, were eonfirmed hy a new inspection of the Fr::tgment HI,
line 1 could be reconstructed as [ ... pa-t]u-u.
To sum up, these remarks on the preserved fragments of the
dod stele seem to contradict H. Tadmor's opinion that the
ts be connected with the events that occured in Ashdod
the rebellion a.ga,inst Assyria about the year 712 B. C. 42.
should not overestima,te historical significance of the
ts. On the other hand, we must strongly emphasize the
of this find as a, first-rate source indirectly eon-
the accounts of. the conquest of Ashdod found in other
texts coming from DuI' Sharukin and Niniveh, as well
mention in chapter XX, 1, of Isaiah 43. As D. N. Freedman
observes, this is in fact the first instance of discovering
tal inscription in Palestine since the finding of Mesha's
in 1868 44; for it is hard to count the small fragment of an
inscription from Samaria 45, whose dating (also to the
of Sargon H) is uncertain 46. Of the few objects imported
Assyria or executed in Assyrian style that have so far been
and describecl 17, the Ashdod stele is among the most
op. cit., p. 272. \Vinckler, op. cit., H, pI. 34, n° 72. Dothan expresRcs the view in his publications that the
of the Ashdod rebellion may have appear on the lost part stele. Cf. his Ashdod of the Philistines,p. 24 and Ashdocl ll-Ill,
43 M. Dothan, Ashdod of the Philistines, p. 25. 44 D. N. Freedman, Excavating in an Old Testament l'own, p. 10
The Second Season ... , p. 138. 45 C. J. Gadd [in:] J. W. and G. M. Crowfoot, K. M. Kenyon,
Ill: The Objects from Samaria, London 1957, p.35 pI. IV.
L. D. Levine, op. cit., p. 56. The scarcity of Assyrian finds in Israel is stressed by R. H e-a,nd E. Stern, Two "Assyrian" Bowls from Israel, IE,T 23, 1973,